Yes, pretty soon North Koreans will all be in America coming on boats. Then you will be able to shoot them freely. Forget 9/11 and how American enemies are far more likely to use other means to attack.

We are still in 1781 and American enemies will come on boats threating the citizenry. Then you will justify gun ownership.

Chernyshevsky writes: "If the principal had a gun, would we not expect her to use it in defense of the school children?"

Your comment presumes as a pre-requisite that every primary school in the land has been turned into an armed fortress with an assault weapon in the principal's office, and, now, in addition, there will be a requirement that to become a principal you must have appropriate SWAT team training ...

How ridiculous.

So that our children can live in an environment of even greate fear and paranoia?

Schools are supposed to be refuges of learning and sanity where children are taught to confront and address life's challenges rationally, and without violence,

and, instead, as if you are an NRA shill, all you want to do is sell more assault weapons, this time to every school board in America.

- - - - -

It cannot possibly have been intended by the founding fathers that the second amendment would be interpretated as entitling every digruntled 20 year old male in America to posess arms that would give them the ability to endanger; to exercise, arbitrarily, the power of life or death over, classes of innocent kindergarten children whenever they feel like it -

because, quite separate from the killing of his mother and the theft of her guns, relative to that school and those children, up until this nut blasted his way through the security door he had not committed any criminal offence.

An unarmed fortress is somehow better? Our children would feel safer knowing there's someone capable of protecting them. How terrible it must to be a child turning to the adults she knows for protection in a fearsome situation, only to find that the adults are as terrified and as vulnerable as she is.

"An unarmed fortress is somehow better? Our children would feel safer knowing there's someone capable of protecting them. How terrible it must to be a child turning to the adults she knows for protection in a fearsome situation, only to find that the adults are as terrified and as vulnerable as she is."

This comment is based on the same idiotic premise as the last one. It is the premise that is wrong from the get-go.

Effective gun control is about living in a society in which people do not believe that the solution to social problems is guns.

We show our societal disapproval by subjecting guns and their owners to rules that (a) demonstrate that the societal baseline is that these are inherently dangerous objects - their sole design purpose is to kill - and that we take those dangers seriously; and (b) impose safety precautions commensurate to the level of danger of the objects in question.

In most western societies gun ownership is not socially acceptable as a norm. It is tolerated in some circumstances, typically in rural areas.

It is not typically socially acceptable in urban areas, and city dwellers who admit to owning, or wanting to own, guns are typically shunned by their neighbours as being potentially dangerous, or deranged, or both. Gun ownership is considered a form of aberrant behaviour. Nobody wants to live near somebody who owns guns. That is the social baseline in most western countries.

It is the cultural mindset - seen in Chernevsky's postings - that needs to change.

Only when membership in the NRA is considered to be as socially unacceptable as membership in the KKK will these gun massacres stop being the depressingly common events they are in America.

Don't take away the guns. Make gun owners culpable for any misuse of their firearms. In the event of homicide, the owner gets an automatic term of manslaughter. Surely, responsible gun owners would have no issues with that. I see big business for trigger locks.

'Guns don't kill people, people do..' as the pro-gun lobby lobby likes to argue. Oh, yes? Then try killing 27 people - even if must of the are kids, with your bare hands and see how far you get.....

The desire to own a gun is almost a parody of Groucho Marx' saying 'I don't want to be a member of any club that will have me as a member.' Anyone who wants a gun should automatically be prevented from having one...even for 'hunting', which in the end is simply the killing of other beoing, usually fr pleasure...

The Second Amendment gives everyone the right to bear only arms,not guns necessarily. If needed, everybody can be allowed to own a sword and guns can be licensed and highly restricted for civilians.These guns will be designed to make a huge noise, seconds before they fire the bullets.

You are correct, however I would be surprised if anyone reading TE has not read material challenging the second Amendment to the US constitution. There is abundant material out there explaining why this provision should have no place in a modern state. The pro-gun lobby merely cite the second Amendment to conjure up mischief. These are people who at heart only care of themselves and do not care at all about others. If any of these people had a child or loved one killed it is interesting how they would rapidly change their minds.

You wrote "...only care of themselves and do not care at all about others".

This struck me... I’ve tried to grapple with and find reason within the massacre, gun-control, and mental health reform and what to do about it. It all really just comes down to selfishness. The massacre was selfish, lack of gun-control is selfish, and the lack of adequate mental health facilities and funding is selfish.

"If any of these people had a child or loved one killed it is interesting how they would rapidly change their minds."

Unfortunately, they would probably take their gun(s) out and use them either on themselves or on someone they blamed for their loss [likely to be officials, teachers or the like].

They would not likely change their minds. Those minds are often so unhinged they accuse Pres. Obama of being a communist or a dictator, or they think the UN is going to invade and take over the US.

It is difficult to be sure of the cause, but I think mental illness isn't the only possible cause, another is the effect of a steady diet of pernicious political propaganda and religious/superstitious nonsense.

Mental illness is a specific pathology, many of the people who have perpetrated these sorts of atrocities are not necessarily mentally ill. We should not put too much emphasis on mental illness as a root cause of these problem. Besides mental illness - if we stick with that for the time being, like all other illnesses is not a fixed condition. A person could be mentally ill one week and perfectly well the next, or vice-versa. How on the other hand can anyone guarantee that a person who is mentally ill will not get hold weapons obtained by a none mentally ill person ? In Newtown, Adam got hold of his mother's weapon/s which had allegedly been obtained legally.
More pernicious in America is the extreme focus on the individual without any collective sense,It is increasingly becoming a worldwide phenomenon, but reaches its extreme in America. Me,Me,Me. This narcissistic mentality is juvenile in its source and the individual sees himself or herself as the center of the universe no empathy or sympathy what-so-ever. The effect of this is very wide ranging indeed and ultimately affects wide areas of life from health care, to education , to housing, drug addiction, drug taking etc. Manifests itself in everything from obesity to cosmetic surgery. This is part of what the America should seek to be addressing. In the mean time banning guns altogether would drastically reduce the homicide rate in America. Drastically - there is no doubt about that.

I respectively disagree that “many of the people who have perpetrated these sorts of atrocities are not necessarily mentally ill.” However; I do agree that “We should not put TOO MUCH emphasis on mental illness as a root cause of these problem.”, but I will add that it is wrong to put NO EMPHASIS on mental illness as a root cause. (capitalization of certain words above used to denote extra emphasis in the discussion)

We do seem to be in agreement (you wrote “Me, Me, Me”) regarding the root cause as being “It all really just comes down to selfishness”. Either “selfishness” in perpetrating the act, or “selfishness” in allowing conditions to exist that facilitated the act.

Regarding what you wrote “Me, Me, Me… …This is part of what the America should seek to be addressing. In the meantime banning guns altogether would drastically reduce the homicide rate in America. Drastically - there is no doubt about that.” I wholeheartedly agree that “banning guns altogether would drastically reduce the homicide rate in America”. However, you are proposing the ‘chicken before the egg’. We must overcome “selfishness” in coming to “banning guns altogether”.

Mental illness unfortunately is devilishly difficult to define and categorize accurately. It is instructive to listen to so call experts in psychology and psychiatry when presented with the same facts. dispute the categorization, prognosis or method/s of treatment which are appropriate to treat the condition, where they even admit that one exists. I do not denigrate their profession. Many years ago at university, one of my lecturers got me interested in psychology which opened my eyes to the share range of abnormalities which the human mind can present.
Without wishing to digress, the issue of mental illness will I hope be dealt with in due course. Until then, if there are far fewer guns in circulation this would deter homicidally inclined individuals from committing the sort of atrocity that has just occurred in Newport. The truth is that it is only too easy to kill people on such a scale with firearms. Without firearms it is far more difficult to carry out.
The only reason why I raised the issue of mental illness earlier, was to address one of the points the pro-gun lobby use to explain these murders. In order to address this problem, the more urgent course of action to take, would be to remove as many guns from circulation as quickly as possible. I admit that would be difficult, given the so called strength of the 'gun lobby', but it is not impossible. I certainly hope that for the sake of the American people President Obama would do something to bring about the reduction in the number of firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens. In the end these ultimately cause too much pain and provide scant security.

I have to agree with you regarding mental illness being “devilishly difficult to define and categorize accurately”. Not that I am an expert in psychology or even to have ever read one book on the subject. I just know, from an early age, that humans can be so very complicated. That is probably why I became an engineer, not because engineering is not complicated; engineering is rational and governed by nature.

Also, I have come to agree that it is more important to reduce access to guns. Even with reforms in caring for the mentally ill; I don’t think that this will greatly reduce the probability of what happened in Newtown, CT. happening again. Actually; I was never against greater gun control, I just did not want to commit to a one-solution approach.

"Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, says he wishes Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School, was armed with an M-4 assault rifle when she confronted Adam Lanza, the shooter who killed 20 children.

“I wish to God she had an M-4 in her office locked up so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

Gohmert said the founding fathers wanted the public to be armed to resist government tyranny.

“It ensures against the tyranny of the government if they know that the biggest army is the American people, then you don’t have the tyranny that came from King George,” Gohmert said in reference to King George III, the king of England during the American Revolution.

Indeed, indeed. What a complete oaf. I live in England where the police are rarely armed and where it is difficult for ordinary citizens to get firearms. I certainly would not want to live in a country where primary school teachers carry firearms which they are expected to use. The idea itself fills me with revulsion.
I am certain that I am much older than the average person reading these posts, one thing I would say is that I have never handled a firearm in my life, nor do I ever care to do so. I do not see anything glamorous in having firearms. We have never had the sort of atrocity which has become all too common in the USA, and as long as access to firearms remains restricted I am certain that it would remain so. For anyone to suggest that the solution to the sort of atrocity at Newtown is to have more people armed is plain barmy. It is about time Americans start thinking properly.

You speak of a gun as though it were a toothbrush. Now part of a teacher training course would include training in weapons handling. By the way was the mother of the murderer not a teacher in the very school where these poor children were killed, and did the murderer not use weapons legally obtained by his mother to kill her and then himself. You better start thinking like a grown-up !

If you get the impression that I'm speaking of a gun as though it were a toothbrush, you're definitely mistaken. A toothbrush is quite useless in this situation. Even if employed in an unorthodox manner, a toothbrush would not stop an armed assailant. I don't really know how that idea entered your head. Perhaps you would elaborate on this theory of yours concerning toothbrushes and mass murders? Personally, I was speaking of a gun as though it is what it is. It's an instrument that can cause bodily harm to others. While in general we seek to avoid causing bodily harm to others, bodily harm done to Adam Lanza would have resulted in a more desirable outcome.

You are either deranged or deluded, otherwise can you explain the basis of the assertion that the crime rate in England is ten times higher than in the US ? To start with I have lived in the US as well as in some other countries, trying to kick sand around will not work, facts are clear. In the OECD there are no countries with higher per capita levels of violent crime than the US. And if you suggest that people in Europe do not feel safe simply because they do not carry guns then you are simply not willing to face reality.

From the comments you have made on these pages, I know you have never shot anyone with a firearm in your life. Killing someone is not like you see on your X-box or as you see in the movies. If you have any doubts ask any soldier who has ever been on a battle field and actually shot someone. It is not an easy thing to do, even for professionally trained soldiers. To look someone in the face and shoot them dead is perhaps one of the most difficult things a person can ever do. To then suggest that a sensible solution to this problem is to have primary school teachers handle firearms on a daily basis, on the off chance that they may have to use these weapons to defend the children in their care, suggests either wanton superficiality or a level of immaturity which does not take account of reality. Few responsible people would pick up a weapon and start shooting without having a full grasp of the conditions around them. In normal peace-time it would be unreasonable to expect young women to be in that state of mind at all times and indeed your proposal might well inadvertently lead to the loss of more lives than would otherwise be the case. I said in my earlier post start thinking like a grown-up, we are discussing serious issues here.

This train wreck of an island nation that you boast about has a 6th grade education level that is barely above the USA, a laughable socialized healthcare system with no innovation, vast uncontrollable riots with a generation of urbanites that think a corner shop keeper is an evil corporation, vile food, terrible dental care and like most of Europe the citizens are not having children to replace an aging society, meaning in about 50 years you will be replaced by a vast majority of Muslim immigrants. And if the are moderate Muslims, IT WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT.

Don't be facetious. Clearly you have never had the pleasure of visiting these sceptered isles, which is why you make these outlandish statements. In any case if you are happy having your children shot at etc., then, by all means, stay where you are, we are well happy where we are.

England [... I hope you do not mistake Great Britain for England ], may not be yet a utopia, but it is in my opinion, even now, a far better society than the US, any deficiency you may point out in England - where you struggle to find any , is only multiplied ten-fold in the US. Don't lecture me on the US, as I have lived there before and even had some of my secondary, post-secondary and university education there.

I bet none of the parents who's children got killed on Friday had a gun for if they did it just might have saved their children's lives. I bet the murderer's mother, who was also a teacher in the school would have been able to save the children if she had a gun ?

Many soldiers even in the heat of battle often find it difficult to fire shots at the enemy. You now expect a primary school teacher - who is usually a young woman, to have a gun at all times and be in a mental frame of mind to be prepared to use it in an emergency to protect children in her care. It is possible, but I would not want such a woman looking after my children and I would not want to marry such a woman. Shooting another person is a very surreal experience and many people who have shot another person dead often have the haunting image of the person in their minds. Blood , flesh , smell, saliva , teeth etc you would see it all and probably never have another rear steak in your life.

There's always one thing I don't get about those types of arguments. Even if we grant their premise that there isn't enough guns to keep people safer, how would they forcefully increase gun ownership rates? After all, gun control is already so lax in the US, it's safe to assume that everyone who wants a gun has one.

If there isn't a constitutional way to get that done, solutions similar to that proposed by Rep. Gohmert are absolutely worthless (again, this seems to be the case even after accepting their premise).

The i...t has never faced mortal danger, probably lives in his parents basement, has posters of weapons on his wall including attack helicopters and tanks and spends the whole playing x-box, can you blame the poor ?

The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.
Unlike some countries, the police there is unarmed because
it shows that they are working for the people. Tragically,
two female Officers lost their lives because they were not
armed, and the perp had military grade weapons.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239

Brazil has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.
Most people know little about Brazil other than the
propaganda it puts out as an "Emerging market."
Just look online for BOPE (Rio de Janeiro's SWAT)
and the weaponry available to most drug traffickers
there. The average citizen in Brazil cannot legally
own a 9mm pistol. Yet, criminals have wide access
to assault rifles (fully automatic) such as FN-FAL,
AK-47, M-4, etc.

The tragedy in Norway proves that tough gun laws
do not prevent massacres of innocent people.

Cameras, drones, passive surveillance, etc. can
limit such tragedies. Guns in the hands of well
trained and responsible citizens can avert the
tragedy from spreading. When Congresswoman
Gabrielle Gifford was in the podium, and the gunman
pulled his gun out to shoot, there were no security
apparatus present. No even a licensed person with
a personal handgun for self-defense. Someone who
could have shot the attacker before he killed so many
people would be justified in most cases. Specially if
he instead of killing the perp, disabled him with a
well placed shot on the shoulder, etc. in a non-lethal
manner. The shooter would have to face the judicial
system, and jail term. The citizen with a weapon would
likely be considered a hero by most people (specially
if he averted the crisis from escalating, and allowing the
perp to live to see a trial).

Please do not put your own spin on news items. The British policewomen who got killed did not die because they did not have weapons. Their killing was a very rare occurrence in England and despite the call to have armed , this call was roundly rejected by policemen in England themselves. More policemen get killed in the US than in the UK despite the fact that US policemen are armed.

I am both an American and a Brit; and having lived and worked in both countries, I don't for one second believe that there is a greater proportion of the US population that is psychotic or murderous than in the UK.

Therefore, how can we explain the wildly different murder rates? To me, the only rationale explanation is that Brits with the requisite intent don't have the opportunity afforded by widespread firearms ownership to act on these impulses that their American counterparts have.

I can think of no sensible rationale for civilians to hold semi-automatic rifles (not required for hunting or target shooting) or hand guns of any sort at all - and certainly not in homes. The level of training and practice for these to be effective "protection" should involve range work of several hours a week to provide the required accuracy and target discrimination.

If nothing else, perhaps this will lead to banning - and compulsory collection - of the most dangerous semi-automatic rifles and their large calibre single-short counterparts, along with a federal ban on the sale of their ammunition (5.56 and 12.7mm rifle ammunition). Add to this a requirement for every weapon to be licensed and ballistically tested, and kept in a locked cupboard with ammunition held separately and securely, then we may see a reduction in some of the tragic accidents that make up a large proportion of US firearms casualties.

Finally, we can impose taxes on ammunition to reflect the externalities that gunfire imposes on the rest of society. These will be very high, reducing the amount of ammunition in circulation.

And no, none of this would have an impact on my rights as an American under the 2nd Amendment.

Great. I was just about to post something similar. I think when people hear the term "gun control" they think of no guns. That is not what I interpret it as. I see gun control as limiting the type of guns one can own, and making sure that the people who do purchase guns are not a threat to society. After all, society is where one's rights come from in the first place. There is such a difference between owning a shotgun for hunting and owning an automatic weapon or other weapons that are "offensive". Guns that are designed to kill people should be vastly more highly regulated or banned.

I am British but have live in America and indeed have numerous close relatives in America. You are right there should be more stringent regulation and restriction on firearms, however the ideas you suggest do not go far enough in my opinion. The nutters who glibly say people kill people , guns don't kill people are as dishonest as they are disingenuous. Some people when only come to their senses when they are personally affected by this sort of mindless violence, when their child or other loved one were killed.

Many thanks for your comments. I agree, it would be great to go further, but even ignoring the current understanding of the 2nd Amendment, I just don't see the political will in the US to apply anything like the limits on gun ownership seen in the UK or Japan, sadly.

Exactly this. It's high time that second amendment rights came with responsibilities. Don't take away their guns. Make them culpable for any misuse of their firearm. In the case of homicide, owner should be jailed for manslaughter. Why should somebody else die because they can't lock up their weapons?

Your bafflement would be less if you actually read the text of the Supreme Court decision. The semantic issue you referred to is specifically dealt with in Heller vs. District of Columbia:

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

You're free, of course, to disagree with the Court's interpretation. I hope you will cease to be baffled though. I do abhor confusion and ignorance in other people.

The clause however does not define which arms the individual has the right to keep and bear.

Times change and weapons have most certainly changed but if we want to rigidly adhere to obscure sentences in a document written by ancient people, than I think it is perfectly acceptable to allow citizens the right to bear arms contemporaneous of the revolutionary war.

I worked for many years in the mental health field in California, with both the patients and the psychiatrists, treating patients with Schizophrenia and Manic Depression (also known as BiPolar Disorder). I've also done extensive research on the impacts of the huge, nationwide Budget Cuts for Mental Health Services, often the first services in the budget to be slashed.

The kid, the shooter, may be an undiagnosed Schizophrenic and may have had his first major psychotic break. A total Psychotic "Break" (a complete break from Reality) known as Psychosis, typically occurs, both in Schizophrenia and in Manic Depression, in the patient's early 20's.

Signs and hallmarks of the Paranoid Schizophrenia, which include but are not limited to the following: Age of onset (early 20's), history of being socially awkward, introverted, intelligent and bright, talented, but it all collapses suddenly; High achievement, but stops suddenly as did the shooter, 24, who dropped out of school unexpectedly and abruptly. These are all highly indicative, textbook symptoms of severe, undiagnosed mental illness.

When a schizophrenic becomes psychotic, which literally means that they go into a world where they cannot distinguish reality from their often-horrific delusions. It means that they lose all control, and they then spiral downward rapidly as their paranoid imaginings take them further and further toward the steep edge of the veritable and VERY DANGEROUS cliff. If they are left alone, with no one to notice, (as most of them are), then, depending on their delusions of the moment, they very may well think that they are PROTECTING THEMSELVES from an unseen enemy!!

So, as totally ignorant, irresponsible, loudmouthed, hate-mongering continues among the people, particularly in the political arena and/or the media; As these buffoons lose more control of themselves, and as they become more histrionic, and as they glibly and arrogantly point out so-called enemies and the usual scapegoats, some one is BOUND TO SNAP. It is no wonder to me AT ALL that some lunatic out there simply cannot take it anymore. And, by the way, when a very-ill mental patient or some other poor sod who is severely irrational and off-balance, when these people have such easy access to weapons, such as the weapon used by the guy in Tucson that shot Giffords, and get these weapons at any mere passing whim, THAT is PURE INSANITY!!!!!!

So, knowing a bit on the topic, I am willing to bet that, once more information emerges, we will see severe, untreated MENTAL ILLNESS behind this tragedy, specifically Schizophrenia with Paranoid features. And if that turns out to be the case, No he is NOT legally responsible, but must be institutionalized as a danger to others.

Most people chose to totally ignore profound mental illness; And those in "authority," whom have the considerable power to pass legislation [to DECREASE the budgets for mental health services]; their own appalling ignorance of critical issues such as mental illness; and their steadfast refusal to educate themselves AT ALL about the most elementary mental health issues, is indeed a serious detriment to ALL of society; And as society continues to decay, as global economies are deliberately PLUNDERED by the likes of Mitt Romney and HIS filthy ilk, these kinds of horrible, violent rampages will only continue and INCREASE, not decline or get better.

Mental Illness is a tragedy for the mentally ill; the family members who by and large willfully ignore and/or deny signs and symptoms that show themselves pretty early on; and, of course the victims of these rampages. And knowing that there are no easy answers, I do believe that the more people choose to deny, ignore and remain uninformed, there will be more tragedies as society continues to literally break down in front of us.

As the mentally ill are left to suffer alone in silence and in shame and in horror, as they are, no doubt, ashamed and horrified, especially since mental illness continues to carry a horrible stigma; So, as these people are left to themselves, misunderstood and ignored, indeed it should be no surprise if one of them eventually goes off the deep end.

Plus, by law, a doctor or anyone else, is forbidden from forcing them to take the medication. So, if they are, or become, a danger to themselves or others...It's often TOO LATE.

Complicating things further is the fact that most of these medications' side effects are so horrible and so unbearable, that the patient is conflicted as to which is worse: the disease itself or the side effects of the medications to counter the symptoms.

Mental illness is REAL. It is a double-edged sword, too. I can't express my sympathy enough for those damned with mental disease. Remember, though, that very few people with mental illness, treated or untreated, go violent. In fact, in the overall population, it is a very small percentage.

Those outside America may have little understanding of the power of the NRA. Despite all the posturing and flurry of activity following this horrible event, nothing significant regarding gun laws in the US will change. The NRA is too powerful and will not allow that to happen.

An accomplice in a crime is as guilty as the person committing the crime. Icons like Charleston Heston who oppose control on the possession of guns should take a look in the mirror one more time and ask a question whether they see an advocate of human freedom or a accomplice of a mass murderor.

These things happen in a society hooked upon violence, excitement and tragic drama and subconsciously longs to indulge in their occasional joy of sorrow and public expression of grief and heroism for all the world to see. Not unlike in parts of the Middle East where people are happy only when they are tragically miserable since to subsist in a life so restrictive there's nothing else enjoyable to do, but to court disaster. Asking for trouble! So to speak.

Nothing like an important problem - average number of similar massacres in US is like 2 per year, so less people die in them than in many kinds of accidents.
Anyway, a willing man will find a tool - in so controlling China a similar massacre took place, but the murdered used ... a knife. If you are determined, you can kill a big number of defenceless people by very unsophisticated tools.
Gun ownership changes only that massacres happen with guns and not something else. Is it a real problem that these atrocities are done with guns?

In addition, the entire point of guns is that they are a more efficient means of killing people. If they were not, the people who claim to want them for self-defense or hunting would just use knives, too. You can't claim it makes no difference which one someone suffering a psychotic break has access to, then claim it does make a difference which one you have access to.

Yes, when someone twice your size comes at you you can console yourself and say "hey, I got me a knife!". Which leads to another point, how big can your knife be, when can you have it, etc.. There's got to be whole books on knife regulation. Me starting to think its the governments unintended regulation which enabled all this. If you had a lead pipe for defense, I'm guessing there'd be a mound of regulation on that too.

If the person twice your size comes at you without helpfully warning you first, you're going to be having hand to hand combat. Any weapons either of you carry, or can reach, up for grabs. I realize in these action movie scenarios there is always a fight choreographer making things go right--their bullets will miss! Your bullets will all hit, even if you have to take out five guys at once before any can return fire!!!--but most of us don't carry one of these guys around to arrange our lives more artistically.

You do not get to make the argument that a gun in your hand makes you several times as dangerous, but a gun in the hands of a lunatic is, hey, just like a knife or lead pipe.

The worst massacre in the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing. That didn't involve the use of any guns. 9/11 itself didn't involve the use of guns either. Evil-doers will always find some way. People keep bringing up the knife attack in China on the same day, but as I mentioned earlier, 14 people were killed when a disgruntled worker torched their factory recently. Some years before, more than 300 people lost their lives when an arsonist set fire to a disco during a Christmas party. What are we going to do, ban fire?

I reply to chernyshevsky but also in general to this thread. We don't ban fire (obviously), knives, lead pipes, cars etc. because they all form a useful part of a functioning society and have a purpose, although they can all be used to harm. It's a trade off between usefulness and harm. A gun has the sole purpose of killing or maiming. Maybe if you can demonstrate how you can clean your teeth with your gun you might convince myself and others that you're onto something...

Also your comment about Oklahoma city kind of proves the point. You don't get many bombs going off in the US, bar the rare tragic exceptions. How easy would it be for other attacks like that one to happen if bombs were legal for self defence?

"Evil-doers" will always find a way, but you don't have to bloody help them!

Hmmm, is it time for gun advocates to trot out the usual retort, similar to the last Colorado shooting, that if more people had been carrying guns then someone could have fired back and reduced the carnage? Because nothing promotes school safety like armed 6 and 7 year olds and public school teachers packing heat.

I have never understood exactly what it is they think someone in the Aurora theater--dark, smoke-filled, full of civilians, against an assailant wearing bulletproof vest, helmet, neck guard, leg guards, and groin protector--would have done with a glock. That actually stopped the attack, I mean, rather than adding some more random crossfire to it.

A bullet-proof vest might save your life, but it certainly does not make you invincible. Simple laws of physic. A vest prevents penetration by a bullet. It does not nullify a bullet's kinetic energy. All of it will end up transferred to the person hit. The impact is often described as being hit by a baseball bat or a sledgehammer. It induces severe pain and often injuries such as cracked ribs. Even if James Holmes were wearing the best body armor available, an armed patron at the theater still could have disabled him. And the point is to stop the man from killing, not to kill him.

And some randomly armed bloke in the middle of a panic-stricken theatre with people no doubt screaming and running around could have done more harm than good. You don't need to be trained to own a gun and that in itself is very scary. I really don't need the cocksure 18 year old behind me in the cinema having delusions of grandeur that when the proverbial hits the fan that he will leap to our collective defence with his underwear outside his pants and his cape billowing in the wind and save the day.
Cards on the table, I live in the UK so I don't fully understand the culture of the US, but I do love a lot about your country. I visited the US recently I was at a shooting range and it's pretty obvious that some people aren't exactly qualified to own a gun. I saw a lady that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. That's with an instructor telling her what to do. In a lit range. With no panic. And no threat to her life. Also, the target was 5 metres away. And it was not moving or brandishing assault weapons.
I got talking to her afterwards and she told me she was going to buy a gun the next day for self defence. I would prefer a chimpanzee armed only with greasy frying pan to defend me thanks.

If Americans are happy, as they seem to be, to pay for the second amendment with the blood of their children and the tears of parents, that is their choice. It is quite clear that the only "gun-control" that would stop this kind of event is that which operates in Japan and the United Kingdom and that simply is never going to happen.

3) If your government was tyrannising over you, a bunch of yahoos with small arms ain't going to achieve jack shit against the means of coercion at the disposal of a state.

4) The Zombie Apocalypse won't ever actually happen. Sorry.

5) You're not a frontier society. You're not all rugged individuals standing on your own two feet. You're not a city on a hill. You're not exceptional. Your state is just like any other modern state - you have a giant government, work in offices, regulate the shit out of things, have a namby pamby health and safety culture, and depend upon aircon and cars for comfort. You aren't all living in a John Wayne movie, and you aren't embodying the noble dream of freedom by having six-shooters.

Ergo your constitutional/historic reasons for allowing law-abiding citizens to possess (basically useless) weaponry is anachronistic. Like slavery - also a right of the Framers - it should consigned to the trash heap of history. Why? (a)Because outcomes would be better - fewer of you would get killed, and, (b) the principle you'd be contravening isn't worth a damn any more.

While all of your points are quite logical, and while I agree with them, you are ignoring the social context. Also, while you understand the history well, you are not taking into account the long term effects of the history and tradition.

1. You didn't suggest that the Confederates weren't likely to rise again, and you did not take into account that the frontier tradition [though warped by Hollywood and novelists] is deeply ingrained and can no more easily be shed than the traditions of France, Germany or Greece.

2. No, nor has the government tyrannized us for over 3 1/4 centuries. Until WWII, the national army was relatively small, even the armies of the Civil War were state levies. This feeds into our belief that local government and responsibility are better and are a bulwark against loss of liberty. The Swiss understand this better than UK/EU people.

3. Are Palestinians able to resist Israeli arms? Are Syrians successfully resisting the Assad regime? Were Iraqis able to resist the might of the US? Americans viewing the ability of foreign people to resist the overwhelming powers of not only their own governments, but the forces of the US government, have reason not to take this argument seriously.

4. No, but violence and looting such as occurred after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, and which has happened at other times, is possible, and Americans believe that to be defenseless is both dangerous and irresponsible.

As I mentioned above, your points are intelligent and I can agree with most, but to blithely suggest that a culture that has been very successful for centuries can or should adopt wrenching changes quickly is probably futile.

We can and should make changes. The obvious abuses of "Stand Your Ground laws" [supported/promoted by the NRA], require immediate correction. The ease of getting guns in some parts of the US [NOT here in Massachusetts, the most difficult state in which to get them] needs to be addressed, particularly the ease of access by those underage, immature, unbalanced or criminally inclined.

Please note that I included the late colonial period with the 2 1/4 centuries of national independence. Our states are more like EU countries than like most federal states, and had their own governments at the time of the revolution. Indeed, the attempts of the British government to curtail those governments led to the revolution.

This is the aspect of American history and culture that is most difficult for others to understand [except for the Swiss]. To understand us better, you should research the history of the states, particularly the oldest, like Massachusetts.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' constitution is older than the national one, and we take pride in our heritage, including starting the revolution. You can see annual reenactments of the main historical events on Youtube.

Your approach to the constitution is butchered up, which would lead to tyranny. It's not the 2nd amendment which forbids the government from banning firearms, it's that the government has never been given the authority to ban them. We live in a society which has granted government defined and specific powers, not one that "allows" it's citizens to do stuff. Agreeing with your point, Your misunderstanding of the constitution is a greater threat to liberty than any ownership of firearms could protect.

in 2012 would-be guarantees of an education in a communist constitution dont' seem particularly relevant, whereas mass killings by gunfire do. What's with it that we keep having to revert to former communist and totalitarian states to make obscure and irrelevant talking points?

Because your comment immediately suggested as much, that's why. Its freedom and liberty that best keep whole bunches of people from being killed, and you're trying to (erroneously) insinuate the opposite.

I don't know, does Australia have freedom? You're suggesting that the Australian government has the right to confiscate their citizens means to defend themselves, so they apparently don't have that freedom. What freedoms do Australians have? I guess you can compare the US to Canada but we know that Canada has restrictions on free speech and we know we don't want that as our model? Do we?

Um, yes. Australia is a free and democratic country, not a communist dictatorship. Their gun control laws are actually IN BETWEEN the model of all citizens carrying whatever they want, and all citizens having no ability to own arms. As they are most places, including here. You can throw your strawman "all gun safety is government seizure of all weapons, oops, so I guess we won't change anything" around all you want, but the rest of us don't have to buy your framing.

Hyun, you must be excluding murder from your list of violent crimes when comparing the US and the UK. Because the murder rate per 100,000 population in the United States is about four times the rate in the United Kingdom.

In the last year I lost my right to manage my own health care. If i choose to have no health care, i get fined and punished. Next year the the man that takes multimillion dollar vacations regularly demands that I dedicate more hours out of my day to support the government and less time to my family. Clovis is suggesting that I ought to be sent to prison if I defend my family from assault with a firearm. There are proposals floating around DC discussing on weather to confiscate my retirement stored as an IRA.

Yep, no threat of dictatorship or tyranny there... If this all happened in the last 3 years, please tell me when the demands on my freedom end. What does this all look like in 20 years? What is it that you all want?

Canada has no restrictions on free speech. Ignorant nutters who don't get our hate speech laws say that. The 'restrictions' aren't all that different than laws that bans actions likely to incite violence, elsewhere in the world.

If you disagree, please quote the exact law which you say bans free speech.

You sound like a 3rd world dictator... "Human rights issues? What human rights issues? We have no human rights issues."
I quote you- you don't have free speech. If someone says something that some panel, somebody, or something, determines incites violence then you shut it down.
Free speech involves allowing people to say what they want no matter how vile you might think it is. Canada doesn't have Free Speech. They have speech that doesn't piss some panel off. With that established, one just merely has to expand or control the definition of what incites violence.